The Resistance of High Performers

 

Shaping- Hoboken, NJ

One of the most challenging lessons I have learned across my professional life is that organizations do not always resist poor performance; sometimes they resist high performance. A recent article reflecting on Luis Velasquez’s Harvard Business Review essay, “Why Effective Leaders Get Branded as Problems,” argues that effective leaders and employees are often misdiagnosed as the source of organizational conflict when, in reality, they are exposing deeper organizational weaknesses. I found the argument both compelling and familiar. I would also like to acknowledge a colleague of mine, Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig of Western Michigan University and a former colleague at The University of Texas at Austin for his original post on his blog known as CLOAKING INEQUALITY. 

Throughout my career, I have worked in schools, universities, and research organizations undergoing periods of growth, stability, and decline. As Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Hoboken, I learned that efforts to increase accountability, use data more effectively, or challenge longstanding assumptions often generated resistance. The resistance was rarely about the specific proposal. More often, it stemmed from the discomfort that accompanies change and the visibility that change creates.

I have seen similar patterns in higher education. As a tenured faculty member and later as Associate Dean for Research, I worked with talented colleagues who pushed institutions to improve. They asked difficult questions, challenged inefficient processes, pursued ambitious goals, and sought evidence to guide decision-making. While these behaviors are often celebrated rhetorically, they can become politically complicated when they expose complacency, outdated practices, or low expectations.

The article makes an important distinction: not every critic is correct, and not every high performer is misunderstood. However, organizations should be cautious when they consistently label their most productive and committed people as “difficult,” “impatient,” or “not team players.” Sometimes those labels reflect genuine interpersonal challenges. Other times they serve as a convenient way to avoid confronting larger organizational problems.

As a researcher, I am particularly drawn to the article’s discussion of evidence versus narrative. Organizations frequently rely on stories, reputations, and historical perceptions rather than current evidence. Once individuals acquire a reputation—whether positive or negative—that narrative can become remarkably resistant to change. In educational settings especially, memory often proves more influential than data.

Perhaps the most troubling consequence is the message sent to future leaders and employees. When organizations punish urgency, candor, innovation, and accountability, others quickly learn to remain silent. Over time, the culture begins rewarding comfort rather than improvement. The people most committed to the mission either disengage or leave altogether.

My own experience suggests that successful organizations are not those without conflict. Rather, they are organizations capable of distinguishing between destructive criticism and productive discomfort. Growth requires friction. Improvement requires honest conversations. Effective leaders and employees should not be judged solely by whether they create tension, but by whether that tension helps move the organization toward better outcomes.

The article serves as a valuable reminder that when organizations repeatedly identify their strongest contributors as the problem, it may be worth asking a different question: Are these individuals creating dysfunction, or are they simply making existing dysfunction impossible to ignore?